Not exact matches
Where have you refuted
anything I have said
in a
rational or logical
way?
The potential threat posed by Iran's claimed peaceful nuclear programme (going
anything over 20 % uranium enrichment, defined as the «Red Line» by the Obama administration), should also be understood
in the context of the unintended consequences of the norms and rules (of the regime itself) and the
ways in which nations both «good» and «rogue», «
rational» and «irrational» have come to define their own rights and obligations within a nuclear regime.
That's the
way most people have been taught and all they know about
anything sexual — a tingling
in the groins that if you allow yourself to feel (and enjoy) you'll lose your
rational mind and when you die, you'll go to hell and burn
in a big fire.
As reality finally overcomes media bias and political correctness, the naive excitement of a few years ago — when
anything «green» was portrayed as lower cost, clean and superior
in every technological sense — has given
way to more
rational thinking.
You need to drop the idea that a consensus of
anything in science research will establish the truth.It is NOT a
rational, or valid
way to determine something that was originally conjectured to explain something.It can take just ONE person to prove everybody else wrong.